University of Cumbria

Semiotics of
Fashion
QUESTION: An item of clothing is not a neutral sign, it is a conveyor of
symbolism,

cultural

meaning,

value,

status

and

myth;

ultimately

dependent on the viewer [or audience] to decode. Discuss the validity of

this statement and conduct a close analysis, of one item of clothing from
your own wardrobe.

Written by: Natalie Blundell

Course: Design in Context 1

Tutor name: Nick Dodds
Hand in date: December 15th 2016
In todays society we are constantly communicating with one another whether it be through social media, spoken words, signs, art or clothing;
and so the list goes on. Throughout this essay the symbolistic values of
clothing as a visual language will be examined and challenged, in an
attempt to disregard it as merely a sign of neutrality. The language of
clothes seems to cross borders more easily than verbal language and is
built upon the idea of semiology (Andrewes, 2004).
Semiotics involves the study not only of what we refer to as signs
in everyday speech, but of anything which stands for something else.
(Chandler, Jan 2007)

What we wear can purposely or unintentionally be a sign, conveying a

particular meaning or ideal. Culture is one of the most obviously
identifiable signs within the visual language of clothing and has been for
centuries. How much an audience understands the meaning of an object,
in this case an item of clothing, depends on an extent of their prior
knowledge from others texts (Miller, 2011). Many are aware of different
cultures whether it be through the media, education or their own
experiences, whatever prior knowledge we hold, it then allows us to
decode what is being communicated.

Some of us may decode different meanings than others; therefore,

cultural clothing can have a positive or negative impact. Correspondingly,
culturally, dressed bodies will feel welcomed and accepted by the other
before any exchange of words has even been made. Cultural clothing
explains, in brief, the beliefs and lifestyle of others. This can help to form
implicit bonds between those alike. On the contrary of things, cultural
clothing can consequently push those away whom do not accept nor
agree with particular said beliefs. This is a form of prejudice and this ideal
is slowly being discouraged within our modern day society.

Aside from culture, our clothing can show our wealth or therefore lack of.
From a modern perspective, wealth is shown through ownership of big
designer labels including: Dior, Chanel, Louis Vuitton and Armani. Many of
those who can afford such labels are usually branded as celebrities.
These are typically people of a higher social status who are well-known
through the media. As a result of the social hierarchy, we look up to these
people and aspire to be like them. One of the best ways to identify with a
3

celebrity is to dress like them. After all, clothing concerns everyone and
everything; the human body, the relationship between man and body, and
of course the relationship between body and society (Barthes, 2004). So
what makes designer labels so good, and why do some feel the need to
own such extravagantly priced items?
The bags which Louis Vuitton makes and sells clearly have a
function that goes beyond their usefulness as vessels for carrying
belongings (Miller, 2011).

As stated, a designer labels primary aim is not to function as an

operational item of clothing. In fact, its true function is to elaborate
wealth and enhance qualities including sex appeal and self-confidence.
Those who own the same or similar labels also automatically belong within
a set, structured community. Within each community there are people who
own a similar out-look and understanding on the world, whilst also sharing
comparable priorities (Andrewes, 2004). The more expensive, or
correspondingly stylish, our clothing the higher the structured community
we belong to: thus implying a heightened social status.

The fact that designer labels and the latest trends favour form over
function, suggests the value of clothing has gradually decreased over the
centuries. Originally the purpose of clothing was to warm and protect the
human body, acting as a piece of physical armour. As time has passed
however, the armour of which we wear has become a lot more of a
personal and emotional article. We hide much more than just our body
beneath our clothes and it is up to us what we want to show or hide from
the world (e.g. as covered previously, we may choose to show our culture
or opt to hide it).
Many of us will have a variety of versions of ourselves which we
show through our clothes. This is due to the fact particular items of
clothing reflect attributes such as, sexiness, danger, professionalism etc.
(Miller, 2012). Different occasions call for a single, or multiple, distinctive
attribute/s. Whilst we care more about the underlying meaning of the
clothes, we often disregard the importance of warmth and protection: an
original obligation. Although trivial, this can be understood. The value or
practicality of our clothing communicates much less than the semiotics
associated with fashion, thus explaining why value holds a decreasing
importance in our modern day.
In the matter of clothing, which as may be seen on the most casual
study, is of the most vital importance to humanity, there is some
mysterious and compelling power at work, which forces people by millions
and millions to wear clothing which they neither like, admire or need; in
which they are not comfortable, and which they cannot afford. (Gilman,
2001)

To accept and learn that clothing is not a neutral sign: it is a conveyor of

cultural meaning, value and status, can sometimes lead to the
misunderstanding that clothes are a form of self-expression. Despite that
this is an assumption many make, it is incorrect. As humans, we do not
exist singly, and simulated isolation instantly produces morbid reactions
(Gilman, 2001). A consequence of this is that we cannot dress for
ourselves as individuals. We must always dress with others in mind.
There are unspoken rules which subliminally exist throughout the
dressed society. There is right, and then there is wrong. For most, this
knowledge is hard wired in. To dress or speak in a recognizably
inappropriate manner is to refuse such rules, and therefore run the risk of
being considered mad or in some other way chronically unsociable
(Andrewes, 2004). Therefore, one can never dress as an individual or fully
express themselves and remain part of a stable society. As a result of
these constraints, people seek other forms of self-expression including
music and art as the viewers of such things tend to be a lot more open
minded and non-judgemental. The same things can never be said for
clothing; despite the fact it is an art form. This is because it is also a social
product. Without the structures and constraints holding us in place, a
social hierarchy would seize to exist.

Subsequent to what has been previously stated, I will now proceed to

closely analyse an article of my own clothing, putting the semiotics of
fashion to true practice. The item of analysis is, a pair of pyjamas.
Pyjamas are something we are all familiar with and most likely do, or
have owned, at least once in the past. They naturally seem rather
uninteresting from the offset, as it is self-evident and obvious why people
wear them (Miller, 2012). However, as pyjamas are an item of clothing,
they are in fact part of the visual language of fashion. This means that
through the use of semiotics, various meanings can be decoded and
understood. First of all, pyjamas are an intimate garment, commonly worn
for sleeping and relaxing. This means we are rarely seen in said clothing,
aside from by our family and close friends: therefore, an attempt to
impress is unnecessary. This would imply that we are the purest forms of
ourselves when adorning pyjamas. We are not hiding behind clothes with
false attributes or social importance, as we do during the day time.
Instead, we are wearing something that we personally like. Trends hold no
significance in this case. Consequently, wearing pyjamas is the closest we
will ever be to total self-expression.

Culturally, not much can be said through the wearing, or in some cases
absence of, pyjamas. Countless styles of pyjamas are worn all over the
world, by those belonging to culture and by those who do not. There is no
evidence or semiology that suggests culture has an impact on the
pyjamas we wear. It is more so our geographical location and climate of
which we live in which impacts our decisions when it comes to choosing
what we wear to bed. Unlike with most fashion, pyjamas follow function
over form.

Signs and semiotics of negativity spring to mind when pyjamas are viewed
as an expression of status. One cannot show their wealth through wearing
such an article, no matter the expense. This is as pyjamas connote
feelings of laziness and weakness. People of a high class do not want to be
deemed in such a way as usually they are hard workers, hence their

wealth. Despite this, an interesting point can be made in the fact wealthy
bodies can afford to live leisurely; so in theory wearing clothes of leisure
e.g. pyjamas can be used to promote their wealth. The unspoken right and
wrongs prevent this ideology from occurring though, and so people are
forced to invest to appropriate leisure clothing such as: jogging bottoms
and sweatshirts.

The most important feature of clothing is undoubtedly the value. Pyjamas

must be warm and comfortable and they do not need to necessarily look
good either. They are one of the few articles of clothing where value is
actually favoured over style. The reason for this being is of course that
very few people see your pyjamas and so some would argue that they are
not a social product as they do not impact your rank within the social
hierarchy.

I personally believe there are semiotics associated with and a

language spoken even by the simplest of clothes: pyjamas. To me pyjamas
symbolise something sentimental. For each pair I own there is a memory
or story which springs to mind. Whether it is memories of endless days in
bed plagued with illness, lazy afternoons spent cuddling my dogs or early
Christmas mornings sat downstairs by the tree. There is always a time and
a place and through my pyjamas I can easily capture and remember such
things, whereas it is harder to do with clothes as there are thousands of

situations when and why they could be worn. Pyjamas only see fit to a
few.
There is also some form of metaphorical, but somehow magical power of
which pyjamas possess. After a long, tiring day simply putting them on
personally results in instantaneous relaxation. Whereas, on the other
hand, spend too long in such a garment and feelings of grogginess and
laziness come into play.

To bring means to an end, clothing could not possibly be seen as a neutral

sign. There are endless meanings which can be derived from a singular
article of clothing. It is then up for audience interpretation: to break down
and understand what is or is not being communicated. Not every article of
clothing will convey meanings of culture, value or wealth, whilst others
sometimes will. Some garments may communicate as little as one thing
whilst others communicate thousands. This is the language of fashion.

10

Furthermore, the semiotics of fashion can extend to more personal

means. We pour our heart and soul into our clothes by willingly placing
ourselves within them. They adorn our bodies minutes after birth and
follow us throughout the entirety of lives. Clothes are a companion; and to
dismiss them as an art form as well as a visual language would be to limit
ones knowledge and understanding of the world and people around us.

Works Cited
Andrewes, J., 2004. Dress as a Cultural Tool : Dress and Demeanour in the
South of Senegal. Leiden: BRILL.
Barthes, R., 2004. The Language of Fashion. s.l.:Berg Publishers.
Chandler, D., Jan 2007. Semiotics: The Basics. 2nd ed ed. s.l.:s.n.
Gilman, C. P. H. M. R. D. M. J., 2001. Dress of Women: A Critical
Introduction to the Symbolism and Sociology of Clothing. Westport:
Greenwood Press.
Miller, D. W. S., 2012. Blue Jeans: The Art of the Ordinary (1). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Miller, J., 2011. Fashion and Music. s.l.:Berg Publishers.

11

Bibliography
Andrewes, J., 2004. Dress as a Cultural Tool : Dress and Demeanour in the
South of Senegal. Leiden: BRILL.
Barthes, R., 2004. The Language of Fashion. s.l.:Berg Publishers.
Chandler, D., Jan 2007. Semiotics: The Basics. 2nd ed ed. s.l.:s.n.
Gilman, C. P. H. M. R. D. M. J., 2001. Dress of Women: A Critical
Introduction to the Symbolism and Sociology of Clothing. Westport:
Greenwood Press.
Langdown, N., 2011. Fashin and semiotics. [Online]
Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/NatashaLangdown/fashion-andsemiotics
[Accessed 2nd December 2016].
Miller, D. W. S., 2012. Blue Jeans: The Art of the Ordinary (1). Berkeley:
University of California Press.

12

Miller, J., 2011. Fashion and Music. s.l.:Berg Publishers.

Volpintesta, L., 2014. Language of Fashion Design : 26 Principles Every
Fashion Designer Should Know. Osceola(Florida): Rockport Publishers.
Weston, P. T., 2005. Theories of Fashion Costume and Fashion History.
[Online]
Available at: http://www.fashion-era.com/sociology_semiotics.htm#Fashion
As A Sign System
[Accessed 5th December 2016].

13